[debbugs-tracker] bug#27884: closed (parted reports the partition is not optimally aligned, even though it's 1MiB-aligned)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:02:49 -0400
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#27884: parted reports the partition is not optimally 
aligned,  even though it's 1MiB-aligned
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #27884,
regarding parted reports the partition is not optimally aligned, even though 
it's 1MiB-aligned
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
27884: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=27884
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> parted reports the partition is not optimally aligned, even though it's 1MiB-aligned
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:46:34 +0200
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
>
>
>
>
> Hi.
>
> Is there any explanation to this GNU parted output?
>
> GNU Parted 3.2
> Using /dev/sde
> Welcome to GNU Parted! Type 'help' to view a list of commands.
> (parted) unit B                                                          
> (parted) p                                                               
> Model: Seagate M3 Portable (scsi)
> Disk /dev/sde: 4000787029504B
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B
> Partition Table: gpt
> Disk Flags:
>
> Number  Start     End             Size            File system  Name  Flags
>  1      1048576B  4000786153471B  4000785104896B  ext4
>
> (parted) align-check                                                     
> alignment type(min/opt)  [optimal]/minimal?                              
> Partition number? 1                                                      
> 1 not aligned
>
> Why does it say it's not aligned? Both the the start and the end are
> 1MB-aligned (and therefore trivially 4096B-aligned and 512B-aligned), am
> I right?
>
> In [1]: 1048576/4096
> Out[1]: 256.0
>
> In [2]: 4000785104896/4096
> Out[2]: 976754176.0
>
> For the record, at least it says it complies with "minimal" alignment:
>
> (parted) align-check                                                     
> alignment type(min/opt)  [optimal]/minimal? minimal                      
> Partition number? 1                                                      
> 1 aligned
>
> Regards,
> Alicia.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#27884: parted reports the partition is not optimally aligned,  even though it's 1MiB-aligned
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Wed, 20 Sep 2017 10:02:49 -0400
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
>
>
>
>
> On 9/20/2017 9:57 AM, Alicia Boya García wrote:
> > Indeed.
> > 
> > This drive was advertising a ridiculous optimal_io_size that is not even
> > a power of two (2^16-1 512-byte sectors). Unfortunately this seems to be
> > the case with more Seagate drives:
> > 
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-parted/2016-12/msg00002.html
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5249211/
>
> You have to love drive firmware bugs, especially when the bastards never
> fix them.
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---